I remember it. It was boring.>>78216212
The combat readiness of the control system may or may not be good (of course the FSB would tell you it's good), but the condition of the missiles themselves is likely worse than the condition of the rest of Russia's military hardware. Apart from some showy purchases in recent years, they're mostly flying old fighters that don't stand up to modern capabilities; it's not even a Battle of Leningrad situation where they could throw out wave after wave - it's unlikely half the reported fleet of any nation's air force could all fly at once, because these are complex machines with long and complex rebuild times and maintenance cycles. If you buy 10 fighters, you put three aside as spares - as in, you literally take them apart for spares for the others, because you cannot rely in wartime on the supply chain of a private contractor, even if they're only nominally private (as all major contractors are - since they only get money from certain states).
Now apply that to nuclear weapons. You're talking things with a payload that literally destroys itself over time; it's constantly throwing out radiation as it decays and that radiation is destroying the electronics that are supposed to control the warhead itself, as well as flight guidance, launch control - no matter how well you shield them, as well as irradiating the surrounding area. Plus they're in complex launch bays, or mounted on vehicles that need constant maintenance (unless you're one of those people who though Battlefield Earth was a science-fact movie) to remain worthy. It's not a cost-neutral proposition - maintaining them requires a lot of time, effort, and money. Russia hasn't even had the money to buy new tanks and jets until recently, and it's in a horrible financial crash right now.
Whereas a numbers network with a scary intel legend attached to it (even if it's actually just an orienteering tool) costs next to nothing to maintain.